On Monday afternoon, 25 February [2008], Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone,
Secretary of State, met with the entire school community of La Habana
University. The following is a translation of his address, given in
Spanish.

With gratitude for the cordial welcome that you have given me, I wish
to begin this afternoon recalling two great figures impassioned for Cuba
and linked to this place.

The first is the Servant of God Felix Varela, father of the Cuban
Nation, whose mortal remains rest here and the anniversary of whose
death we are celebrating today.

The second is the Servant of God John Paul II, who spoke in this same
seat 10 years ago. Few have been able to delineate the figure of Fr.
Varela as John Paul II did in the Address he delivered in this very
place.

Both personages incarnated an egregious model of humanity, being
known as men of peace and goodness even by those who did not share their
ideals and beliefs. Both confirmed that it is not necessary to dilute
one's identity to establish a fruitful and creative dialogue with all
persons.

The existential adventure of Fr. Varela offers us an ideal background
for the theme that has been entrusted to me of culture and the
fundamental ethics of human life, considering in particular Christian
culture as the framework of and inspiration for ethics.

To be more, not to have more

As is known, the young priest Felix Varela obtained, by winning a
competition, the first Chair of Constitutions established in the College
of San Carlos in 1821. It is significant how he defined his Chair in the
academic inaugural address, his brilliant opening lesson: this, he said,
must be called instead "the Chair of freedom, of human rights, of
national security„.. the font of civil virtues, the base of the great
edifice of our happiness" (Inaugural Address of the Chair, 21
January 1821).

That Chair offered him a better opportunity to reflect on the way to
build a society, on the values that must be at the foundation of human
coexistence, among which freedom — "one of the most precious gifts that
the heavens have given to men", in the words of Don Quixote (II, ch. 58)
— occupies first place and, next to it, the other human rights and the
rectitude of their activity.

The concern for the formation of young people was a constant in Fr.
Varela's life. He was aware that it was not the law that saved people,
but their virtue on a personal level and in their public activity. In
their vision of a new Cuban Nation, Varela and Fr. Agustin Caballero
before him and Jose Marti after him, reveal a Catholicism attentive to
the modernization of the Country, to human rights and freedom.

Lastly, they showed that Christianity and modernity are not
incompatible, but converge in the defence of human dignity. And the
world needs this great alliance.

Jose Marti, a famous Cuban, said that "to be learned is the only way
to be free". This affirmation offers me now the opportunity to examine
in greater detail the relationship between culture and the fundamental
ethics of human life.

All people appreciate culture as an important good. However, why is
culture a good? John Paul II explained it masterfully when he recalled
that "education consists in fact in enabling man to become more man, to
'be' more and not just to 'have' more" (UNESCO Address, 2 June
1980; L'Osservatore Romano English edition [ORE], 23 June, n. 11,
p. 10).

Actually, by means of culture, the human being "refines and develops
man's diverse mental and physical endowments. He strives to subdue the
earth by his knowledge and his labour; he humanizes social life" (cf.
Gaudium et Spes, n. 53). If culture is an asset, then it must be
brought to all and not be a luxury reserved to some elite groups.

Culture, however, is more than the simple individual desire to
acquire new knowledge. It possesses a fundamental historical and
communitarian dimension and presents itself to us as a concerted effort
to offer a vision that gives meaning to life, including all of its
aspects.

In this regard culture is always characterized by a tension that
continually seeks to supersede itself in two directions: in a horizontal
sense, toward other cultures, to their mutual enrichment, and in a
vertical sense, toward transcendence, toward the ultimate source of
truth, beauty and goodness.

We can therefore say that culture is the ethos of a people. It is the
norm of behaviour and at the same time a normative ideal, even though it
is not always lived and respected.

In this sense, ethos and ethics are strictly linked, not only
etymologically but also because culture is the result of man's praxis as
well as the condition of human activity. No culture exists without
reference to an ethic, nor an ethic without reference to a culture. Both
either remain united or disintegrate.

Now this simple observation sets before our eyes the phenomenon of
cultural diversity, one of the most characteristic traits of our age
that at times provokes a healthy change in customs and brings about the
re-examination of convictions [previously] considered immutable. It can,
however, also provoke a painful loss of identity, with consequences that
are difficult to foresee.

For some, the diversity of culture and behavioural norms inevitably
leads to affirming the existence of a common and objective moral norm.
Beginning from the experience of diversity one deduces the impossibility
of universally valid moral norms. Moral relativism holds that an ethical
affirmation would be true only in the context of a determined culture.
Therefore, there would not be convictions or principles that would be
ethically better than others, and no one would have the right to say
what is right and what is wrong.

Immorality, a moral good?

The theses of cultural relativism and ethical relativism have been
strengthened by the development of modern reason, a process described
masterfully by Pope Benedict XVI in his lecture at the University of
Regensburg. In extreme synthesis this process consists in the reduction
of reason to scientific experimentation, which combines empirical
verification with mathematical formulation. Then, only what can undergo
experimentation and mathematical formulation would be rational.

However, the great questions of human existence, the problems of
ethics and of aesthetics, metaphysics and above all the problem of God,
are left out of all consideration, inasmuch as they are pre-scientific
or a-scientific (cf. Address at the University of Regensburg, 12
September 2006; ORE, 20 September, p. 7).

Well then, this restriction of contemporary reasoning inevitably
leads to subjectivism of the conscience on the ethical level.
Notwithstanding the attempts of Kant to maintain universal morals after
discarding metaphysics, affirming that the only rational knowledge
possible is that of science, one must confine morality to the purely
subjective realm: it would not be possible to speak of universally
recognizable moral norms. So, "the subject then decides, on the basis of
his experience, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and
the subjective 'conscience' becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical"
(ibid., p. 7).

The consequence is clear: in this way ethos and religion lose their
capacity to give life to a community and become a totally personal
matter. Ethical subjectivism taken to the extreme leads to the
paradoxical situation of the duty to permit immorality as morally good.
Since there is no way to determine what is good and what is evil it
would be necessary to conclude that every type of behaviour is equally
valid.

Common sense, however, rebels at this conclusion to which one
necessarily arrives given the premise from which it began.

The logic of this dynamism leads to what Benedict XVI has called the
dictatorship of relativism. This means that, given the
impossibility of establishing common norms with universal validity for
all, the only criterion that remains to determine what is right from
what is wrong is the use of force, be it by vote, propaganda or arms and
coersion.

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize
anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely in one's
own ego and desires" (J. Ratzinger, Missa Pro Eligendo Romano
Pontifice Homily, 18 April 2005; ORE, 20 April, p. 3).
Beginning with these presuppositions it would be impossible to build or
maintain social life.

There exists, however, a fundamental distinction upon whose
recognition depends the subsistence of the human community itself. This
distinction is the boundary between good and evil. Without this
distinction there is no other alternative to the reign of the arbitrary.

Therefore, it is necessary to invert the axiom of ethical relativism
and strongly postulate the existence of an order of truth that
transcends personal, cultural and historical conditioning and which is
perennially valid. This order is what philosophy calls the "natural
law".

I do not intend to tackle at this time the problems concerning this
term, but only to emphasize the fact that with this expression one
refers to an order prior to man which he did not give to himself, which
no government has promulgated and which can only be recognized.

It is the assertion that, in the face of positive rights, which can
be unjust, there must be a right that proceeds from nature itself, from
the very being of man. This right must be found and constitutes the
remedy for positive rights.

The idea of natural rights presupposes a concept of nature that is
strictly associated with reason. It presupposes the idea that nature is
permeated by reason, that in it there is a logos that man, with his
reason, participation and imagination of the Logos Creator, can
recognize. Science itself, to which we owe the incredible progress in
all fields, would be impossible without accepting a rationality in
nature. Besides, if the world is a mere product of the irrational, our
very freedom is, in the end, an illusion.

Thus, natural law appears as a sort transcendent "grammar" that
permits dialogue between peoples, or rather, a set of individually
implemented rules and of relationships in justice and solidarity between
people which are inscribed in the conscience, where God's wise plan is
reflected.

The Church does not intend to impose her view of things on all people
as if she has exclusive moral discernment. She cannot, however, renounce
her profound knowledge of humanity and society. She is an expert in
humanity and respectfully wishes to offer her contribution to the
creation of the human society in which we live.

God: a private hypothesis?

On this point some theorists such as John Rawls or Jürgen
Habermas have defended the necessity of the contribution of religious
confessions to the public debate (cf. Benedict XVI, Address to Rome's
University La Sapienza, 17 January 2008; ORE, 23 January, p.
3. See also J. Habermas, Vorpolitische Grundlagen des demokratischen
Rechstaates? in J. Habermas-J. Ratzinger, Dialektik der Säkularisierung,
34).

Ultimately, they carry out a social role, not only as elements of
social integration that offer subsidiary social services to the
community, but also as a source of wisdom and knowledge.

In this regard Pope John Paul II recalled that the principle of
religious freedom, understood in a wider sense, is the proof of other
rights: "Just as damage is done to society when religion is relegated to
the private sphere, so too are society and civil institutions impoverished when
legislation — in violation of religious freedom — promotes religious
indifference, relativism and religious syncretism, perhaps even
justifying them by means of a mistaken understanding of tolerance. On
the contrary, benefit accrues to all citizens when there is appreciation
of the religious traditions in which every people is rooted and with
which populations generally identify themselves in a particular way"
(Address to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 10
October 2003, n. 3; ORE, 22 October, p. 10).

One immediately senses the objection that in today's society, the
Church and religious confessions should limit their own activity to the
strictly personal sphere of those individuals who wish to adhere to
them, but would have no place in the constitution of a social ethic. It
is affirmed that the modern State must be above religions, which in many
cases are not seen in a positive and balanced way.

A healthy laicity naturally makes a distinction between religion and
politics, between Church and State. Believers and non-believers find the
foundation of this distinction in the words of the Gospel itself, when
Jesus recalls the need to give "to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's" (Mt 22:21).

This laicity cannot mean, however, that God is purely a private
hypothesis and thus exclude religion and the Church from public life.

The famous phrase of Hugo Grocio: etsi Deus non daretur, interpreted
erroneously as the foundation of the political order "as if God would
not exist", means, for followers of the doctrine of natural law of the
18th century, the need to establish principles that would be permanently
valid, "even in the hypothesis in which God would not exist", rather
than with permanent validity for all.

As a Christian contribution to the building of society, the then
Cardinal J. Ratzinger, from the evocative context of Subiaco shortly
prior to his election as Successor of St. Peter, issued a proposal to the
world that I wish today to recall to all of you: "The attempt carried
to the extreme, to manage human affairs completely without God leads us
ever closer to the edge of the abyss, toward the total elimination of
man. We must then invert the illuminist's axiom and say: whoever is
unable to find a way to accept God must nonetheless seek to live and
direct his life veluti si Deus daretur, as if God exists. This is the
advice that Pascal already gave to his non-believing friends; it is the
advice that we would also like to give today to our friends who do not
believe. In this way no one is limited in his freedom, but everything
can find a support and a criterion which it urgently needs" (cf. J.
Ratzinger, L'Europa nella crisi delle culture. Subiaco, 1 April 2005,
Siena, Cantagalli, 2005).

The Church disposed to all

We thus reach the end of our trajectory and reconsider the initial
question. What is the contribution of Christian culture to the
foundation of an ethic of human life?

The answer could be the following: presenting itself as the religion
of the logos and of love, the Church offers a millenary wisdom which she
places at the disposition of all peoples and all cultures, as she is
convinced that a dialogue and a reciprocal enrichment is possible. In
this sense, she offers society a memory and reminder of the existence of fundamental values. She
presents herself, lastly, as a witness to the imperishable.

Respectfully proposing her own view of man and values, she
contributes to the increased humanization of society. Faith, however,
does not destroy any culture; rather, it cooperates in the purification
of whatever disfigures its dignity, its rights and the development of
the person and all that opposes the humanization of society.

If dehumanizing environments and attitudes grow within a nation, it
substantially injures the ethos of that people. Faith, moreover,
contributes to giving the fullness to all that is good, true and
beautiful, opening man to a more elevated vision of himself and of his
life in society.

A life without values is equal to a culture without ethics; it is an
inhuman and dehumanizing culture that inverts the scale of values and
upsets the world.

Precisely because every worthwhile society is based on the principle
of man's supreme value, of his responsibility before history and before
his own human race, it needs a permanent reminder of lasting values that
existed before it came into being and will continue to exist afterwards.

Society needs people whose lives demonstrate the existence of some
fundamental and edifying values. It needs witnesses who work through
their lives to remind all people of the value of the conscience, God's
sanctuary within the human person, and of truth.

Christians, through outstanding men like Fr. Varela and an immense
multitude of daring people like him, ask nothing other than to be able
to witness to this truth to their contemporaries.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, we have reflected on culture as
a framework and inspiration for ethics. The question is to find concrete
ways so that culture and ethics, Church and society, can collaborate to
build a more human world, anchored to the great values of our history:
freedom, peace, solidarity, justice and the integral development of the
person, of every man and woman and of all persons.

Permit me to conclude with the final words that the Holy Father wrote
for his Address to La Sapienza University of Rome, which he was not able
to deliver himself for well-known reasons.

The Pope, addressing the university students of Rome, responded to
the question: What can and should a Pope say at a University? We can
paraphrase this question by asking ourselves: "What does Christian
culture have to do with or say concerning the ethical foundations of
coexistence?".

I believe the response that Benedict XVI has given maintains all of
its validity for us: the Pope — the Catholic Church, Christians — could
say: "Certainly, he must not seek to impose the faith upon others in an
authoritarian manner, for faith can only be given in freedom.... On the
basis of the intrinsic nature of this pastoral ministry, it is the
Pope's task to safeguard sensitivity to the truth: to invite reason to
set out ever anew in search of what is true and good, in search of God;
to urge reason, in the course of this search, to discern the
illuminating lights that have emerged during the history of the
Christian faith, and thus to recognize Jesus Christ as the Light that
illumines history and helps us find the path towards the future"
(Address for the inauguration of the academic year at theLa Sapienza
University of Rome, 17 January 2008: ORE, 23 January, p. 4).

Thank you to all.

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
12 March 2008, page 7

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by: